DEFINING "griefing" as any act wherein where a group of nations, not native to a region, move to it with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position; and then, having seized this position, proceed to forcibly remove natives from the region;

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong, as it infringes on the right of natives to govern their own region;

AWARE that The Land of Kings and Emperors (The LKE) originally raided Free Thought on the 4th November 2009, leaving after a brief occupation which involved raising their flag over the region;

NOTING that The Land of Kings and Emperors took offence to the natives of Free Thought removing said flag, and referring to it as "that darn flag";

FURTHER NOTING that The LKE invaded Free Thought again on the 22nd December 2009, installed a secret password, and ejected The Tofu Islands, a native of the region;

DENOUNCING The LKE's over-reaction to harmless jibes made by Free Thought's natives about its flag;

OBSERVING that The LKE have changed the World Factbook Entry of Free Thought to read "This once rebellious region has been conquered by The Land of Kings and Emperors (The LKE) and now forms a permanent part of our continually expanding empire";

CONCLUDING that The LKE are griefing Free Thought, especially given their track record, and those of The New Inquisition and Unknown, who have also participated in the raid;

RECOGNISING that the natives of Free Thought, including Polynumina and Luna Amore, desire to have the region restored to their control;

RESOLVING that this can only be done through the intervention of the Security Council;

Sedgistan wrote:DEFINING "griefing" as any act wherein where a group of nations, not native to a region, move to it with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position; and then, having seized this position, proceed to forcibly remove natives from the region;

So, explain to me why this is bad, and why the WA needs to be concerned with this. I know there is an answer... but for some, that isn't self-evident.

AWARE that The Land of Kings and Emperors (The LKE) originally raided Free Thought on the 4th November, leaving after a brief occupation which involved raising their flag over the region;

November 4th, of what year? 2007...2008? 2009... 2012?

NOTING that The Land of Kings and Emperors took offence to the natives of Free Thought removing said flag, and referring to it as "that darn flag";

This seems about as trivial as the ol' Orange & Blue joke to be perfectly honest. It just makes "LKE" sound like an organization of pricks, not evil harbingers of chaos and destruction.

FURTHER NOTING that The LKE invaded Free Thought again on the 22nd December, installed a secret password, and ejected The Tofu Islands, a native of the region;

Give me a year, please.

CONCLUDING that The LKE are griefing Free Thought, especially given their track record, and those of The New Inquisition and Unknown, who have also participated in the raid;

Track record... like what?

EDIT: Oh, I see you're going to compose a list, good job, Sedge!

RECOGNISING that the natives of Free Thought, including Polynumina and Luna Amore, desire to have the region restored to their control;

Have publicly declared their desire?

I think maybe this resolution needs a clause pertaining to why the World Assembly should set new administrative parameters on the delegate of Free Thought. Yeah know? A conclusion of the facts, which clearly states that LKE is abusing Free Thought through the power given to them by the World Assembly, and is interfering with interregional peace and goodwill.

Last edited by Unibot on Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sedgistan wrote:DEFINING "griefing" as any act wherein where a group of nations, not native to a region, move to it with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position; and then, having seized this position, proceed to forcibly remove natives from the region;

So, explain to me why this is bad, and why the WA needs to be concerned with this. I know there is an answer... but for some, that isn't self-evident....I think maybe this resolution needs a clause pertaining to why the World Assembly should set new administrative parameters on the delegate of Free Thought. Yeah know? A conclusion of the facts, which clearly states that LKE is abusing Free Thought through the power given to them by the World Assembly, and is interfering with interregional peace and goodwill.

I'll include those two together with a new clause near the end of the resolution: "BELIEVING that this griefing of Free Thought is interfering with interregional peace and goodwill, which gives the Security Council the moral obligation to intervene;"

Hmmm, maybe that makes the 'Resolving' clause redundant - thoughts?

I'll add the years, as suggested.

NOTING that The Land of Kings and Emperors took offence to the natives of Free Thought removing said flag, and referring to it as "that darn flag";

This seems about as trivial as the ol' Orange & Blue joke to be perfectly honest. It just makes "LKE" sound like an organization of pricks, not evil harbingers of chaos and destruction.

You're wrong there - with Condemn Macedon, we condemned them for a trivial reason, with this, we're liberating in part because of our disapproval at The LKE's trivial reason for invading. If it makes The LKE sound like 'an organization of pricks', then I can't say I'm disappointed.

RECOGNISING that the natives of Free Thought, including Polynumina and Luna Amore, desire to have the region restored to their control;

Have publicly declared their desire?

It needed this thread to be posted first, now they can publicly declare it - just give them some time.

Last edited by Sedgistan on Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

CONCLUDING that The LKE are griefing Free Thought, especially given their track record, and those of The New Inquisition and Unknown, who have also participated in the raid;

Perhaps you could extrapolate a bit on said "track record" within the text of the draft? It would help set up a possible condemnation down the road.

As stated in the OP, I'm compiling a list of the track record of The LKE, TNI & Unknown's attempts to grief regions. I'll include it in this thread, but would rather not clog up the resolution with those details. I do agree that they could be grounds for future condemnations of those 3 regions - perhaps I'll have to write those afterwards...

# 9 days ago: FlagSmartzez approved the World Assembly proposal "Condemn Grub".# 9 days ago: FlagSmartzez voted against the World Assembly Resolution "Liberate Land of the Liberals".

It's surely a coincidence you seek to 'liberate' the region in light of the above right? As for your definition of 'griefing' it is not already took?: "Griefing: Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said."

Have the 'natives' even made their desire to be 'liberated' publicly known? Surely at the very least they have communicated this to you or TC?

Last edited by Martyrdoom on Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Martyrdoom wrote:# 9 days ago: FlagSmartzez approved the World Assembly proposal "Condemn Grub".# 9 days ago: FlagSmartzez voted against the World Assembly Resolution "Liberate Land of the Liberals".

It's surely a coincidence you seek to 'liberate' the region in light of the above right? As for your definition of 'griefing' it is not already took?: "Griefing: Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said."

Well I voted against "Liberate Land of the Liberals" too...As for the definition, if you think it would be prudent, I could change it to 'region griefing', so that it didn't conflict with the definition included in the game rules. However, I do think this is an opportunity to expand on the game definitions, to incorporate the definition of 'griefing' which players have developed.

Have the 'natives' even made it their desire to be 'liberated' publicly known? Surely at the very least they have communicated this to you or TC?

The Tofu Islands didn't seem too concerned, but the other two natives (named in the resolution) did want the region liberated - they've all expressed this via telegram to me. Now that this thread has been posted, I've contacted them again, and hopefully they will declare publicly their support for this.

Last edited by Sedgistan on Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sedgistan wrote:Well I voted against "Liberate Land of the Liberals" too...As for the definition, if you think it would be prudent, I could change it to 'region griefing', so that it didn't conflict with the definition included in the game rules. However, I do think this is an opportunity to expand on the game definitions, to incorporate the definition of 'griefing' which players have developed.

Well, you know my thoughts on this: I don't think its 'prudent' to introduce definitions/concepts to legislation which goes against the game rules as they now stand - i.e. given influence, there can no longer be any 'invasion-griefing' etc because there are no 'natives'.

The Tofu Islands didn't seem too concerned, but the other two natives (named in the resolution) did want the region liberated - they've all expressed this via telegram to me. Now that this thread has been posted, I've contacted them again, and hopefully they will declare publicly their support for this.

I'm not accusing you of anything underhand (I'm sure you're way more upstanding than my nation ), but that reads like a gambit someone like me would try in an attempt to open up a region for invasion. I could also bring 'native' nations here too.

Last edited by Martyrdoom on Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The honoured ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg's opinion is whether all regions that have names suggesting freedom should be liberated, which is going to be quite hard to tackle but not totally impossible.

Sedgistan wrote:I'll include those two together with a new clause near the end of the resolution: "BELIEVING that this griefing of Free Thought is interfering with interregional peace and goodwill, which gives the Security Council the moral obligation to intervene;"

Hmmm, maybe that makes the 'Resolving' clause redundant - thoughts?

I'm not a big fan of this "interregional peace and goodwill" being thrown in almost every Liberation that's coming our way. Native support should be the only "moral obligation" the SC should have to act. I suppose you don't want me to remind you that Liberation came on the scene as a tool to combat griefing, since you were the one who campaigned for it.

Martyrdoom wrote:I'm not accusing you of anything underhand (I'm sure you're way more upstanding than my nation ), but that reads like a gambit someone like me would try in an attempt to open up a region for invasion. I could also bring 'native' nations here too.

Speaking as one of the natives mentioned (and as the only one to have gotten the boot so far), I would like a liberation. It’s not like it’s the most critical thing for me, and if it doesn’t happen I’ll probably just squat somewhere else, but it’s still something that would be nice. Count me as supporting this.

Sedgistan wrote:I'll include those two together with a new clause near the end of the resolution: "BELIEVING that this griefing of Free Thought is interfering with interregional peace and goodwill, which gives the Security Council the moral obligation to intervene;"

Hmmm, maybe that makes the 'Resolving' clause redundant - thoughts?

I'm not a big fan of this "interregional peace and goodwill" being thrown in almost every Liberation that's coming our way. Native support should be the only "moral obligation" the SC should have to act. I suppose you don't want me to remind you that Liberation came on the scene as a tool to combat griefing, since you were the one who campaigned for it.

True, and with that, I'm going to remove it. Unibot was right, though, that the resolution needed to state its disapproval of griefing, so I added this:

BELIEVING that griefing is morally wrong, as it infringes on the right of natives to govern their own region;

I was not terribly concerned with either invasion until Tofu got ejected with no declaration or reason. I have earned a fair amount of regional power and our region, despite just having three countries, earned a "Moderate" influence because of us.

In short, I do not approve of the invaders' recent actions and wish Free Thought to be liberated.

Polynumina wrote:I was not terribly concerned with either invasion until Tofu got ejected with no declaration or reason. I have earned a fair amount of regional power and our region, despite just having three countries, earned a "Moderate" influence because of us.

In short, I do not approve of the invaders' recent actions and wish Free Thought to be liberated.

Thank you.

When you say 'liberated' do you mean you wish to have the password removed or do you mean you would like the password removed and then have 'defenders' take the delegacy?

If you had installed the password you are now seeking to remove, this would have been prevented. With due respect (sincerely), has the SC not got better things to do than dilute liberations by using them on a 3-nation region?

Last edited by Martyrdoom on Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Martyrdoom wrote:When you say 'liberated' do you mean you wish to have the password removed or do you mean you would like the password removed and then have 'defenders' take the delegacy?

If you had installed the password you are now seeking to remove, this would have been prevented. With due respect (sincerely), has the SC not got better things to do than dilute liberations by using them on a 3-nation region?

In all honesty, we really don't have much better to do than liberating regions. Its not as though the proposal queue is overflowing with quality legislation either. These 3 people formed a community - small, yes - but a community nonetheless, and it looks like the older two nations have been in the region for years.

As for defenders 'taking over the region', as I'm sure you'll claim we want to do - you're mistaken. As with Feudal Japan, Belgium & all the other regions, the natives end up with their region back at the end, the invaders sent packing, and the defenders gone to help somewhere else.

Last edited by Sedgistan on Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have this notion of deja vu. "Liberate" this, "liberate" that...how boring.

"Send forth all legions! Do not stop the attack until the city is taken! Slay them all!"

>Can I invade other people's regions?

Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.>Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?

You can try. Invader Delegates tend to have very little Regional Influence, which makes ejecting long-time residents difficult. But Delegates can be as kind, generous, evil, or despotic as they wish. It's up to regional residents to elect good Delegates.

Sedgistan wrote:As for defenders 'taking over the region', as I'm sure you'll claim we want to do - you're mistaken. As with Feudal Japan, Belgium & all the other regions, the natives end up with their region back at the end, the invaders sent packing, and the defenders gone to help somewhere else.

So defenders won't be moving in and the taking the delegacy once the password is removed? What you've wrote above is a prime example of the de-facto WA army that is coming to the fore here.

Oh man. They got invaded thrice, in a period of 2 months? And by the same invaders? They deserve to be crashed and refounded.

Also, defenders deserve to be scolded for not doing their job (that is, defending) and letting a region get invaded by the same group three times in a row. I'm not surprised of this, though, since I see defenders are too busy writing "liberations" and changing game rules because they are incompetent to actually beat raiders on the battle field.

Dysian wrote:Oh man. They got invaded thrice, in a period of 2 months? And by the same invaders? They deserve to be crashed and refounded.

Also, defenders deserve to be scolded for not doing their job (that is, defending) and letting a region get invaded by the same group three times in a row. I'm not surprised of this, though, since I see defenders are too busy writing "liberations" and changing game rules because they are incompetent to actually beat raiders on the battle field.

So you're managing to blame both the natives, and all defenders for this region getting invaded & griefed? I would've thought it rather self-evident that the invaders are responsible for what is going on there.

Dysian wrote:Oh man. They got invaded thrice, in a period of 2 months? And by the same invaders? They deserve to be crashed and refounded.

Yeah, because generally peaceful regions for which security is not the number one thought deserve this kind of thing. Obviously.

I only remember two invasions, off hand, and at the end of the earlier one the invader delegate just said something to the effect of “we have decided that this region is not worth reviving, and are withdrawing from Free Thought in respect of it’s sovereignty”. I actually thought that was the last of it (especially given the fact that they left voluntarily after a couple days, and left a note on the WFE that it was now an independent region (on the history page, it’s Ingia’s reign)) and was surprised when they re-invaded. After this one, we might think a bit more about security, but I don’t think anything has been decided yet.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.